Buried deep within the "Act Relative to Economic Development Reorganization" recently signed by Governor Deval Patrick is an amendment to the state's Personnel Records Statute that requires Massachusetts employers to affirmatively notify an employee of negative information placed in the employee's personnel record. The amendment, effective August 5, 2010, caught many employers by surprise, and to date the Office of the Attorney General, which is charged with enforcement of the statute, has offered no guidance on how to implement these revisions. We summarize below the most significant aspects of the amendment and offer our recommendations pending guidance from the Attorney General's office or the courts.
Under the Personnel Records Statute, Mass. Gen. Laws c. 149, § 52C, a "personnel record" is defined to include not only formal personnel files maintained by Human Resources but also informal supervisor desk files and similar records, to the extent those records are or may be used to affect the terms and conditions of an employee's employment. In other words, the "personnel record" is defined by what it contains, not where or by whom it is kept. Starting from this already-broad definition of a personnel record, the amended statute now provides:
"An employer shall notify an employee within 10 days of the employer placing in the employee's personnel record any information to the extent that the information is, has been used or may be used, to negatively affect the employee's qualifications for employment, promotion, transfer, additional compensation or the possibility that the employee will be subject to disciplinary action."
The overly broad and vague language of the amendment thus requires employers to notify employees, within 10 days, whenever "any information" is placed within the employee's "personnel record" that "may be used" to "negatively affect" an employee's employment. Read literally, the new notification requirement would be triggered, for example, when a supervisor sends an e-mail message to Human Resources concerning potential discipline or a manager places a note concerning the employee's future promotion potential within a desk file. Whether the Attorney General's office will interpret the statute so broadly remains to be seen. However, in the interim, we recommend that employers take the following actions:
Access to Personnel Records
The amendment also limits an employee's right to review his or her personnel record to no more than two occasions during a calendar year. However, review requests caused by the notification of negative information are not subject to the annual limit.
Enforcement and Penalties
There is no private right of action under the Personnel Records Statute, although employees may seek judicial action to have expunged from their personnel record any information the employer knew or should have known was false. In addition, the Attorney General's office is empowered to levy fines between $500 and $2,500 per violation.
If you have any questions about personnel records or implementation of the notification requirements, please contact a member of our Labor and Employment team.
Day Pitney Alert
Day Pitney Alert
Day Pitney Alert
Heather Weine Brochin and Gregory Tabakman authored an article entitled "Third Circuit Advises that Employer Must Pay Employees for Short Rest Breaks," which was published by the New Jersey Law Journal.
Day Pitney partner Francine Esposito will speak at the upcoming webinar "Workplace Leave Laws: Strategies to Navigate the Changing Landscape in the U.S." Taking place on Sept. 14 at 2 p.m., the webinar is the first in a series of webinars hosted by the Employment Law Alliance (ELA) on workplace leave laws around the globe.
John McLafferty was quoted in an article, "Employment Lawyers Leery of Bill Banning NDAs, Arbitration," published by Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly.
Heather Weine Brochin was quoted in an article, "Confidentiality Disqualifies Harassment Settlement Tax Deductions," published on the Society for Human Resource Management (SHRM) website.
John McLafferty was quoted in an article, "How Employers' Haunted House and Fright Night Went Way Wrong," published on the Society for Human Resource Management (SHRM) website.
Michael Furey was quoted in an article, "The Biggest New Jersey Cases of 2016," which was published in Law360.
Michael Furey was quoted in an article, "NJ Panel Grills Hospitals Over Discovery In Horizon Row," in Law360. Day Pitney is representing five New Jersey hospitals in a lawsuit against Horizon Healthcare, relating to its new, multi-tiered health plan called OMNIA. Furey advocated on behalf of the five hospitals on Wednesday before a New Jersey appeals court that Horizon should turn over a consultant's report and certain agreements relating to how Horizon categorized hospitals under its controversial OMNIA Alliance program and the impact of OMNIA on the hospitals. These Tier 2 hospitals are alleging various claims, including breach of contract and citing concerns that being ranked in the lower tier of the program will cost them business. Horizon contends the sought-after materials, including a financial analysis, strategic alliance agreements and rate agreements between the insurer and OMNIA network hospitals, contain trade secret and confidential information. "If we're going to prove our hospitals should be Tier 1 alliance members, we need the documents and the information," Furey said.